Saturday, November 02, 2013

In New York Casino Vote, a Dance With Temptation, by Robert Frank,
Commentary, NY Times: In the 48 states that permit at least some form of
commercial gambling, lively debate continues over the industry’s relentless
efforts to expand. On Tuesday, New Yorkers will vote on a proposed
constitutional amendment that would permit up to seven new full-scale
gambling casinos in the state. (The state’s five existing casinos are
confined to Indian reservations.)

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo argues that the amendment would create jobs, increase
school aid and lower property taxes. And, yes, it would do all those things.
But it’s still a bad idea. Other strategies would accomplish the same goals
more effectively, without the disastrous spillovers that invariably
accompany expanded gambling. ...

If casino gambling were expanded, most New Yorkers wouldn’t be directly
affected. Even in places that already have it, only a small proportion of
people become problem gamblers. But much the same could be said of crack
cocaine. If it were legal, most people wouldn’t even use it, much less
become addicted to it. But in both cases, the number who would become
addicted, though small in proportional terms, would be disturbing. If
governments shouldn’t raise revenue by sharing revenue with sellers of crack
cocaine, why should they enter similar pacts with casino operators? ...

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

'In New York Casino Vote, a Dance With Temptation'

Robert Frank:

In New York Casino Vote, a Dance With Temptation, by Robert Frank,
Commentary, NY Times: In the 48 states that permit at least some form of
commercial gambling, lively debate continues over the industry’s relentless
efforts to expand. On Tuesday, New Yorkers will vote on a proposed
constitutional amendment that would permit up to seven new full-scale
gambling casinos in the state. (The state’s five existing casinos are
confined to Indian reservations.)

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo argues that the amendment would create jobs, increase
school aid and lower property taxes. And, yes, it would do all those things.
But it’s still a bad idea. Other strategies would accomplish the same goals
more effectively, without the disastrous spillovers that invariably
accompany expanded gambling. ...

If casino gambling were expanded, most New Yorkers wouldn’t be directly
affected. Even in places that already have it, only a small proportion of
people become problem gamblers. But much the same could be said of crack
cocaine. If it were legal, most people wouldn’t even use it, much less
become addicted to it. But in both cases, the number who would become
addicted, though small in proportional terms, would be disturbing. If
governments shouldn’t raise revenue by sharing revenue with sellers of crack
cocaine, why should they enter similar pacts with casino operators? ...